“The traditional website process is costly, painful, and out-of-date. Growth-driven design is agile, better, leaner, meaner, etc. It’s the future of website redesign, because it’s built on a framework of continuous improvement.”

This all sounds amazing. In theory.

But as I worked through the drafted content, I couldn’t help but feel a little overwhelmed by the demands of growth-driven design. This is especially true given that it’s usually packaged as a less painful, more awesome approach to website redesign projects.

You need to create your strategy. You need to research your users. You need to create what are called fundamental assumptions. You need to create a wishlist. You need to prioritize that wishlist. You need to prioritize that wishlist again. You need to create hypothesis statements. Lots of ’em.

Then, after all that, you need to go through a miniature version of that broken traditional website build process — messaging and content, UX, wireframing, design, QA, etc. — to get your launch pad site live.

And all of those steps are to occur within approximately 30 days or so, and then you can get your hands dirty with the growth-driven design iteration cycles.

So, this week, I decided to challenge my two favorite designer and developers with a question I’m sure other marketers are wondering:

Is growth-driven design really better? Or is it just a different kind of pain? Because it sounds like a lot of work.

Enjoy!

Listen to the Episode

What We Talked About

How should we be talking about growth-driven design, when we say it’s “easier” or “better”?

What makes growth-driven design more effective than the traditional website process?

How do you justify telling businesses to spend money on their website over a longer period of time, rather than just all at once, like a traditional project? Is that level of increased investment really worth it?

How do you address fears that the shift to growth-driven design sounds wonderful, but also completely unrealistic to those who feel like they don’t have the time, the buy-in, or the energy to embrace it?